On 2014/9/30 18:56, Abel wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> On 2014/9/29 23:53, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Abel wrote:
>>> I've been through your patches and noticed that the only domain
>>> which does not call irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent() is
>>> x86_vector_domain. And this makes sense *if* we already knew which
>>> domain is the nearest one to the CPU.
>>
>> Right, and in case of x86 the vector domain _IS_ the one which is
>> always the nearest one to the cpu.
>
> Yes, I know that. :)
> What I meant is... (please see below)
>
>>
>>> But I don't think a well implemented device driver should assume
>>> itself be in a particular position of the interrupt delivery path.
>>
>> The device driver has no knowledge of this. The irq domain driver
>> definitely has to know to some extent.
>>
>>> Actually it should be guaranteed by the core infrastructure that all
>>> the domains in the interrupt delivery path should allocate a
>>> hardware interrupt for the interrupt source.
>>
>> Well, that's what we do. We allocate down the irq domain hierarchy. If
>> one level fails the whole operation fails.
>
> Actually the core infrastructure just calls domain->ops->alloc() which is
> the one who really guarantees it by calling irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent().
> I think it's enough for a particular domain to pick a hwirq from itself for
> that linux irq, and need not to care about its parent.
> What I suggest is something like:
>
> for (iter = domain; iter; iter = iter->parent) {
> ret = iter->ops->alloc(iter, virq, nr_irqs, arg);
> if (ret < 0) {
> mutex_unlock(&irq_domain_mutex);
> goto out_free_irq_data;
> }
> }
>
> in this way, the core infrastructure guarantees allocating down the irqdomain
> hierarchy, and the implementers of domain_ops->alloc() need not to call
> irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent() any longer, just do the things they have to.
Hi Abel,
We have considered the above design when implementing hierarchy
irqdomain, but adopted the irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent().
The core could only support pre-order or post-order processing,
it could support pre-order, post-order, pre-/post-order processing by
using irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent(). So we choose it for flexibility.
Regards!
Gerry
>
>>
>>> And besides the comments/questions I mentioned above, I am also curious about
>>> how the chained interrupts been processed.
>>>
>>> Let's take a 3-level-chained-domains for example.
>>> Given 3 interrupt controllers A, B and C, and the interrupt delivery path is:
>>>
>>> DEV -> A -> B -> C -> CPU
>>>
>>> After the hierarchy irqdomains are established, the unique linux interrupt of
>>> DEV will be mapped with a hardware interrupt in each domain:
>>>
>>> DomainA: HWIRQ_A => VIRQ_DEV
>>> DomainB: HWIRQ_B => VIRQ_DEV
>>> DomainC: HWIRQ_C => VIRQ_DEV
>>>
>>> When the DEV triggered an interrupt signal, the CPU will acknowledge HWIRQ_C,
>>
>> Not necessarily. The CPU will process HWIRQ_C. The acknowledge
>> mechanism depends on the implementation details of the hierarchy.
>
> Yes, you are right. Thanks for pointing out.
>
>>
>>> and then irq_find_mapping(DomainC, HWIRQ_C) will be called to get the linux
>>> interrupt VIRQ_DEV, and after the handler of the VIRQ_DEV has been processed,
>>> the interrupt will end with the level (if have) uncleared on B, which will
>>> result in the interrupt of DEV cannot be processed again.
>>>
>>> Or is there anything I misunderstand?
>>
>> This heavily depends on the properties of the stacked domains.
>>
>> It depends on the hardware requirements and the implementation of
>> domain A and B how this is handled.
>>
>> It might be sufficient to have the following code in the irq_ack()
>> callback of domain A:
>>
>> irq_ack_A(struct irq_data *d)
>> {
>> ack_hw_A();
>> }
>>
>> Another HW or stacking scenario requires
>>
>> irq_ack_A(struct irq_data *d)
>> {
>> ack_hw_A();
>> ack_parent();
>> }
>>
>> where ack_parent() does:
>>
>> if (d->parent_data)
>> d->parent_data->chip->ack(d->parent_data);
>>
>> and ack_hw_A() can be anything from a nop to some more or less complex
>> hw access.
>>
>> So we cannot define upfront how deep an ack/mask/unmask/... has to be
>> propagated down the chain. This needs a careful consideration in terms
>> of functionality and we want to be able to do performance shortcuts as
>> well.
>>
>
> Yes, I got it. And one more thing I concerned is that when hierarchy
> irqdomains is enabled, shouldn't the ack_parent() be called by default
> by the irqchip->irq_ack() of each domain to ensure all the domains in
> the delivery path ack this interrupt?
>
> Thanks,
> Abel.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
